Posted on 07/14/2004 9:50:28 AM PDT by 11th Earl of Mar
Edited on 07/14/2004 10:13:18 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
#####Strategerist says there is not a consensus for an amendment to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.#####
It shows how much "liberal" judicial imperialism has turned our constitutional system upside down. Shouldn't those trying to change the law be the ones who have to build a consensus? In a sane world, that's how it would work. But in the upside down world of "liberal" judicial activism, no consensus is needed at all when the left decides it wants to change things. Justice Margaret Marshall, Justice Harry Blackmun, or whomever, just snaps a finger and the law is declared changed. We're then told that those wanting to keep the law as it has been for the past 200 plus years are the ones who have to go out and build a consensus.
Did supporters a nationwide abortion-on-demand need a consensus to achieve their goal in 1973? Nope. They didn't even need a 51% majority. All they needed were Harry Blackmun and his Supreme Court allies. Consensus? The left don't need no stinkin' consensus! Instead, we were told that if pro-lifers wanted to put things back the way they were before Roe (i.e., the way they were from 1776 to 1973), then they would need to go out and build an overwhelming consensus to put things back the way they were.
That's how the gay "marriage" debate is now playing out. Do you ever hear anyone talking about how gay advocates will need to build a consensus, meaning overwhelming majority public support, to achieve their goals? You never hear that because it's tacitly assumed that they don't a consensus. Only conservatives need a consensus. All the gay "marriage" proponents need are a few appointed judges in the right place when the lawsuit is filed.
In other words, we need 85% public support, two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of the states to win. All they need is 16% public support and nine appointed judges.
The irony is delicious. The Founding Fathers meant for it to be extremely difficult to amend the Constitution. Instead, it's now extremely difficult to keep it the same. The Founding Fathers believed the Constitution should only be changed when three-fourths of the states agree to the change. We're about to have a "right to gay marriage" added to the Constitution by a few judges, contemporaneous with three-fourths of the states voting NOT to permit gay "marriage" (the flurry of recently enacted DOMAs).
James Madison is rolling in his grave.
You're right, but the solution is to impeach the judges, not change the constitution.
It is a national issue.
the federal DOMA is gone in 2005, 6 votes on the SCOTUS to toss it (according to Robert Bork). once the case gets there, its bye-bye. this amendment is an attempt to get ahead of that inevitability.
It is a state issue. When has the Federal government EVER given out marriage licenses?
No I didnt read the article because I know what I BELIEVE. I don't really care either. Like I said, it is a non-issue for me....
Thanks, Bfah -- Check out #282, too.
So then how long would it take until this amendment got tossed too?
I don't think this is for the Federal Government to legislate on....
If you mean "tossed" by the courts, that's impossible. The courts cannot declare the Constitution unconstitutional.
[Though I wouldn't put it behind Sandra Day O'Conner to try.]
Yeah sure uh huh...
Like I said, it should be up to the States to police this issue....the Feds have no right to get involved beyond reaffirming their support through the DOMA.....
the SCOTUS can't toss a constitutional amendment out.
And do you really think that there wouldnt be an amendment saying that the SC could declare any specific amendment unconstitutional passed within the next 5 years after an amendment like this would be passed?
as I am finding, anything can and will happen in Congress anymore...
It's a state issue, you are correct - until a gay couple married in Massachucetts petitions a federal court (and wins) to sanction their marriage outside Mass.
would you agree at that point that it is no longer a state issue?
your "I don't care" attitude is playing right into the hands of the gays on the left. someday, when they are pumping this stuff into your kids at school, you'll care. but by then, there will be nothing that can be done to wipe these gay marriages off the books and declare them null and void.
The government voted to not futher inject themselves into our personel lives? That's very unusual.
Mike, c'mon. its almost impossible to amend it, adding another amendment giving the SCOTUS this power will never happen. it would essentially mean we have installed a monarchy, comprised of the Justices.
The Federal court should say that this issue is not for the Federal courts to decide, but being that the courts are not for judge of impartiality anymore but for political hacks on both sides (or so it seems), they will be able to hold the spotlight on their particular court if they make a ruling on the case, i.e. 15 minutes of fame...
I know, its a pipe dream, but a court that is politically impartial WAS the wish of the founding fathers and it certainly hasnt been quite followed through on in the past what about 10 years or so....
Normally, in personal family matters, that should be true. However, through the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, the courts will impose one definition of marriage on all the states. There is no way around it.
As a practical matter, it wouldn't work to have one state with homosexual marriage, another with child marriage, and another with legalized polygamy. Remember, Utah was required to step in line with the national understanding of marriage before it was allowed statehood in 1894.
The idea behind the Federal Marriage Amendment is to allow the people, not the courts, to decide what constitutes marriage.
Note that constitutional amendments aren't federal legislation; they require approval from both the Congress and the states. They are therefore a good compromise.
well sure, if they would do that, I don't think you would see this push for the amendment - it would remain a state issue.
but everybody knows that's not the way its going to go down.
When Utah was not permitted to enter the union until they aquiesced to the federal definition of marriage. That is your precedent. The feds defined marriage the states regualte. Ever it was, ever it shall be and you will know I am right when the SCOTUS equal protection ruling comes down in about two years from now when they decree the new "marriage paradigm".
I'm not looking to make enemies where I don't have to but the states rights bs is just that bs.
Good Lord Mike, you sound like a F911 acolyte.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.